linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of module libcrc32c"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 3 Jun 2010 18:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc:	Brandon Philips <brandon@...p.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of module
 libcrc32c"



On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > 
> > At least call it "struct module_load_info". But yes, I do agree that the 
> > "load" part is important.
> 
> Looking at the arch code, it has the advantage that it's self-contained.
> They've been pleasantly undemanding from the core over the years; I think
> archs doing tricky things with elf prefer to parse the object themselves
> anyway.  And I'm not sure they want to revisit it, either.
> 
> So I don't think we'd win much from changing them.  I'm wrong later, I'll
> prepend "module_" to the struct name as an internal change then hit them
> all.

Ok. So if we don't expect to ever pass the full load_info struct down to 
the arch code, and we can keep it entirely internal to module.c, then 
"struct load_info" is fine by me.

> If so, do you want just the fixes or the whole refactoring too, while
> it's nice and fresh?

Gaah. "Just the fixes" is definitely the prudent thing to do. At the same 
time, I've now so deeply bought into the whole cleanup thing too, that I 
want to argue that the cleanup might make it easier to handle any locking 
problems if we find them.

But I suspect that is just myself trying to fool/argue my smarter half 
into taking it all.

So you can probably push me either way.

			Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/